Gender archaeology

Gender archaeology is a method of studying past societies through their material culture by closely examining the social construction of gender identities and relations. Gender archaeology itself is based on the ideas that even though nearly all individuals are naturally born to a biological sex (usually either male or female, although also intersex), there is nothing natural about gender, which is actually a social construct which varies between cultures and changes through time.

Gender archaeologists examine the relative positions in society of men, women, and children through identifying and studying the differences in power and authority they held, as they are manifested in material (and skeletal) remains. These differences can survive in the physical record although they are not always immediately apparent and are often open to interpretation. The relationship between the genders can also inform relationships between other social groups such as families, different classes, ages and religions.

The archaeologist Bruce G. Trigger noted that gender archaeology differed from other variants of the discipline that developed around the same time, such as working-class archaeology, indigenous archaeology and community archaeology, in that "instead of simply representing an alternate focus of research, it has established itself as a necessary and integral part of all other archaeologies."

Criticism

Some archaeologists have openly criticised gender archaeology. One of those responsible was Paul Bahn, who in 1992 published a statement declaring that:

The latest outbreak - which bears a great resemblance to the good old days of the new archaeology (primarily a racket for the boys) - is gender archaeology, which is actually feminist archaeology (a new racket for the girls). Yes, folks, sisters are doing it for themselves... Hardly a month goes by without another conference on 'gender archaeology' being held somewhere by a host of female archaeologists (plus a few brave or trendy males who aspire to political correctness). Some of its aims are laudable, but the bandwagon shouldn't be allowed to roll too far, as the new archaeology did, before the empresses' lack of clothes is pointed out by gleeful cynics.

References

Footnotes

Bibliography

• Bahn, Paul (1992). "Bores, Bluffers and Wankas: Some thoughts on archaeology and humour". Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11 (2) (Cambridge). 
• Trigger, Bruce G. (2007). A History of Archaeological Thought (Second Edition). New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521600491. 

Further reading

• Gero, J., Conkey, W.(Eds). 1991. Engendering Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Joyce, R.A. 2008. Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeology. London: Thames & Hudson.
• Wright, R.P., 1996. Gender and Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Gilchrist, Roberta 1999 "Gender and archaeology : contesting the past" London ; New York : Routledge
• Hamilton,Sue . Whitehouse,Ruth D and Wright, Katherine I. (EDs.) 2007. "Archaeology and women : ancient and modern issues" Walnut Creek, Calif. : Left Coast Press
• Milledge Nelson, Sarah (Ed.) 2006 "Handbook of gender in archaeology" Lanham, MD ; Oxford : AltaMira Press
• Milledge Nelson, Sarahand Myriam Rosen-Ayalon (Eds.) 2002 "In pursuit of gender : worldwide archaeological approaches ." Walnut Creek, CA : AltaMira Press.

See also

• Feminist archaeology
• Sarah Milledge Nelson
• Roberta Gilchrist